You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Ben Shacrypto

I wouldn't call John Locke, Montesquieu, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson anarchists - but all agreed with the above social contract.

The question then became putting into practice. And, as everything in real life, there are pre-existing conditions; there are people that disagree with you to an extreme that you may need to make compromises with. ... Or nothing get's done.

Sort:  

"don't kill your neighbor" is a pretty low bar.

How to enforce "don't kill your neighbor" is where they diverge.

Replying to: "don't kill your neighbor" is a pretty low bar.

It may be a low bar but it's an essential first step. Your neighbors are Jews, or Muslims, or Christians or the wrong sect of those religions therefore they're evil and must convert or die.

Let's add race, language and cultural difference to the mix and now ish gets even more complicated. Even in places where everyone "looked" the same different tribes would scar and brand themselves of "this" tribe in order to distinguish themselves from "those other" tribes.

So, I think that "don't kill your neighbor" is an essential first step.

We seem to agree on "don't kill your neighbor".

What are your views regarding enforcement mechanisms?

Ha, good question.

The police are there to enforce the laws. But are they there to enforce all laws? For instance, if there were "hate speech" laws should the police enforce "hate" speech them. It all boils down to our politicians (I'm looking at you Mayor DeBlasio of NYC), the laws they pass, the policy and procedures they impose upon the police.

If the rules and procedures for leaving a suspected criminal unhandcuffed is to kneel on his neck; and this is approved by the politicians who have oversight responsibility - then I blame them for the actions of a policeman who follows that policy.

If politicians pass horrible laws and the courts back them then the responsibility rests with citizens removing the politicians. If the citizens think these laws are appropriate (I'm looking at the Covid lockdown laws) then we have a huge fukin problem.

I find it easy to describe "what should be". It's far harder when politicians and the governed don't find any meaningful limits on what the gov't can and cannot do.

If the rules and procedures for leaving a suspected criminal unhandcuffed is to kneel on his neck; and this is approved by the politicians who have oversight responsibility - then I blame them for the actions of a policeman who follows that policy.

So, do you believe that only the commanding officers were "responsible" for the "war crimes" in question at the Nuremberg Trials?

No. But their actions cannot be ignored (as we've done for years here in the US).

Say you're an honest policeman how do you push back against stupid laws? I think that's what we, as citizens, need to wrestle with. We can't have policemen deciding what laws to enforce and what laws to ignore; that's the law makers and the courts job to do. So, what does a policeman do when he's asked to do something that he think doesn't make sense? Examples could include going after people selling loosies (selling individual cigarettes) or weed; or booze to underage kids or prostitutes or litter bugs or people speeding on the highway or ....

The problem for the policeman - and society as a whole - is "what should the policeman do when he disagrees with the law or the policy and procedures?" How do we, as citizens support policemen who say "no". You're asking an awful lot if you give him only two choices: "enforce the law (which is, presumably, constitutional) and quitting his job,"

We can't have policemen deciding what laws to enforce and what laws to ignore; that's the law makers and the courts job to do.

Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is a District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that held that the police do NOT owe a specific duty to provide police services to citizens based on the public duty doctrine. **

Also,

A prosecutor has full, unqualified discretion on which cases to bring to court and which cases to drop.

For example,

Justice Department probe ends with no action against prosecutors who oversaw Epstein deal **

So, in reality, it doesn't matter which ridiculous laws get passed.

It only matters which ridiculous laws GET ENFORCED.